Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

Then you should take a second look.Let's look at the poster child of ID: Irreducible Complexity. Let's even say that Behe is right for the sake of argument. These structures can not evolve through known evolutionary pathways. So what next?The designer did it.Where did that come from? How do you get from "not evolution" to "the designer did it" if you don't already start with the notion that the designer did it?This is what we mean by starting with the conclusion. The push of ID is to disprove evolution so that their preconceived conclusion is left standing alone (and unsupported by evidence too boot). ID proponents know that they can't win a scientific argument so they try to rig the game so their opponent loses. From this perspective ID is no different from it's predecessor, Scientific Creationism. We have a separate thread dealing with this topic, but suffice it to say that no one has shown us how the supernatural can be included in science. How does one set up experiments so that supernatural mechanisms can be tested?

When I think of the word "explanation" I think of something that is exclusive in nature. That is, only under certain circumstances would my explanation be right.For example, I think that micro-organisms cause infectious diseases. I think that germs explain the evidence. So what do I do? I test the idea. This brings us to one of the classic experiments, the Koch Postulates. These postulates make up a hypothesis, and if the conditions of the postulates are fulfilled then the explanation is right.So how does the designer explanation live up to this standard? It doesn't. There is nothing that can not be explained by a designer. Nothing. An explanation that explains everything explains nothing. That is the problem with ID as it stands right now. It can not say what one should or should not find if ID is true. It can not describe the genetic markers that one should or should not see if ID is true. ID can not say what fossils one should or should not see.In the end, ID is an attempt to add on scientific sounding words to a faith based belief that can not be tested nor falsified. The first hurdle you must overcome is understanding that scientific theories are not beliefs.

deleted. Should have read the rest of your post. Sorry.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The important part here is HOW science determines the best explanation. Science uses the testing of hypotheses to determine the best explanation. For ID proponents the preferred method for determining the best explanation is how well the explanation fits their theology. This is made clear in the Wedge Document where the authors state, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (source)Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Why don't you ask the most vocal ID proponents why this must be? They are the ones pushing this agenda. It also comes through in their insistence that accepting evolution leads to such atrocities as the Holocaust and school shootings. ID is christian because it has christian creationist roots. Also, ID has to get around constitutional bans that do not exist in Hindu or Muslim countries.Edited by Taq, : fix quote box

But you can see how this would be a problem for those who base their faith on the existence of supernatural acts. Where it applies to this topic, some people have based their faith in the idea that life had to come about through a supernatural act, not through a natural one. Therefore, science is a threat to their faith.If this is the case, then there are two strategies. First, try to disprove the scientific theories that are an affront to your beliefs. Second, redefine science so that it encompasses your religious beliefs. This is exactly what the ID movement is all about. This is EXACTLY what the Scientific Ccreationism movement (ca. 1950's headed by Henry Morris) is all about. ID really is a dressed up version of Morris' Scientific Creationism.

If ID supporters put forth something that was rational and scientific then I would be more than happy to refute it, but they don't do this. There are no peer reviewed papers to discuss. There is no ID research to discuss. All they put forth is a long list of logical fallacies, quote mines, and false information. Not only that, but these fallacies, quote mines, and false information are the same fallacies et al. that have were used by scientific creationists before them.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Fallen,Why else, but for creationism, would you start with the conclusion that we were made by an "intelligent designer", and then proceed to try and knock down every competing theory without ever producing research in support of your own idea? Why else would someone state "Not evolution, therefore ID"? It is obvious that the idea of a supernatural designer was assumed before hand.It seems rather obvious to me that the only reason for the existence of ID is as a religious conterpoint to evolution. It is even spelled out as such in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document. No one is really interested in doing ID research, and no one is doing this research. No one is trying to describe the steps in the ID process, nor giving us evidence that these design processes were used in the past. ID is a desert where science is concerned. The only push that ID supporters have made is to discredit evolution, that's it. It has even reached the point that post-Dover strategies include the "teach the controversy" or "teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution" approach.If ID were not religious and were based on science it would be able to stand on it's own two feet. It can't. Without evolution as the foil there is nothing in ID. Just as creationism before it, ID is nothing more than an attack on science that conflicts with an overtly theistic origin to the universe and life.